lukpac's logic is rock solid. Since some people do bad things with guns, nobody should have guns. And since some cops do bad things with guns, no cop should have a gun. A soldier killed some civilians with a gun, so therefore no solider should have a gun.

The father of a black teenager killed by a white neighborhood watch volunteer says recently released 911 tapes debunk the shooter's claim of self-defense.

Tracy Martin, the father of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, told the Associated Press on Saturday that the man who shot his son can be heard running and chasing the teen on the tapes. The neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, tells a dispatcher that he is following Trayvon Martin. The dispatcher tells him he doesn't need to do that.

Tracy Martin asked: "How can you claim self-defense and you are the aggressor?"

The teen's family has said they are more convinced than ever that Zimmerman should be charged.

Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, tells the AP that her son was frightened and was trying to run away from a stranger chasing him.

A state representative dropped his gun on the floor of a state building Tuesday as he was about to attend a hearing.

Rep. Kyle Tasker, R-Northwood, said he was settling into his seat during a hearing of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee when a concealed handgun under his jacket popped out of its holster and fell to the floor.

The gun didn't go off, but it surprised many in the room.

Tasker said he had just given blood and was a little lightheaded at the time.

"I did not latch the retention device on my firearm quite properly, and when I sat down abruptly, it hit the floor," Tasker said.

Peanutbutter wrote:lukpac's logic is rock solid. Since some people do bad things with guns, nobody should have guns.

I'm not sure Lukpac was implying that exactly, but I'll let him speak for himself.

But you know what would be nice? If those gun rights advocates who are so quick to leap to the defense of those seemingly acting in self defense were similarly inclined to call out the nuts among their ranks who, like George Zimmerman, are acting out of paranoid delusion and essentially killing in cold blood.

I mean, if one bad apple does not in fact spoil the whole barrel, what's the harm in publicly decrying abhorrent shit like this? Are you going to own up to all the ramifications of the legislation you support or not? Because ignoring it is pretty cowardly, in my opinion.

Peanutbutter wrote:lukpac's logic is rock solid. Since some people do bad things with guns, nobody should have guns.

I'm not sure Lukpac was implying that exactly, but I'll let him speak for himself.

But you know what would be nice? If those gun rights advocates who are so quick to leap to the defense of those seemingly acting in self defense were similarly inclined to call out the nuts among their ranks who, like George Zimmerman, are acting out of paranoid delusion and essentially killing in cold blood.

I mean, if one bad apple does not in fact spoil the whole barrel, what's the harm in publicly decrying abhorrent shit like this? Are you going to own up to all the ramifications of the legislation you support or not? Because ignoring it is pretty cowardly, in my opinion.

As far as "calling out" the nuts I don't call them out without having a solid basis for doing so. If you think Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, then I suggest refraining from doing the same thing yourself. It is a bit premature to declare that he acted out of "paranoid delusion" and "killed in cold blood." In our society those conclusions are determined in a court of law using the rules of evidence. But you seem to have taken the law into your own hands and declared them to be true using whatever shoddy evidence you choose to use. Perhaps if the prosecutor there determines that there is some legal basis for bringing charges against Zimmerman, and not just public outcry, then the evidence against Zimmerman can be weighed in the manner it ought to be weighed.

It's been a month and he is not even under arrest. The "stand your ground" law legalizes homicide. The cops just took Zimmerman's word that he acted in self-defense. He wasn't even tested for intoxicants. This is a travesity of justice.

Dangerousman wrote:If you think Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, then I suggest refraining from doing the same thing yourself. It is a bit premature to declare that he acted out of "paranoid delusion" and "killed in cold blood." In our society those conclusions are determined in a court of law using the rules of evidence.

Giving an opinion about a case on an internet forum is not "taking the law into your own hands." "Taking the law into your own hands" is, for example, shooting a teenager in the back because you think he might be a criminal rather than, for example, calling the police and letting them handle it. And, I would add, this is true whether you are vindicated after the fact or not, and whether the legal system allows you to take the law into your own hands or not.

Detritus wrote:"Taking the law into your own hands" is, for example, shooting a teenager in the back because you think he might be a criminal rather than, for example, calling the police and letting them handle it.

Are you claiming that Trayvon Martin was shot in the back and that Zimmerman did not call the police? If so, then you might want to check your information.

If you are not making those claims, then why are you putting it that way?

Detritus wrote:"Taking the law into your own hands" is, for example, shooting a teenager in the back because you think he might be a criminal rather than, for example, calling the police and letting them handle it.

Are you claiming that Trayvon Martin was shot in the back and that Zimmerman did not call the police? If so, then you might want to check your information.

If you are not making those claims, then why are you putting it that way?

Good to hear that the law's authors are claiming it shouldn't apply to the Trayvon Martin situation.

Republican state lawmakers in Florida responsible for a controversial 2005 self-defense law said it shouldn't apply to a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, in February.

"This law is for innocent, law-abiding citizens who are under attack by a perpetrator," Baxley told The Huffington Post. "Anyone who is out pursuing and confronting people is not protected by this statute."

"I think they need to go back and read the statute," Baxley said, referring to the Sanford Police Department.

Detritus wrote:"Taking the law into your own hands" is, for example, shooting a teenager in the back because you think he might be a criminal rather than, for example, calling the police and letting them handle it.

Are you claiming that Trayvon Martin was shot in the back and that Zimmerman did not call the police? If so, then you might want to check your information.

If you are not making those claims, then why are you putting it that way?

It's called a "hypothetical," D-Man, typically signaled by the use of phrases such as "for example" (twice in one sentence, as it happens). Anyway, back to your bald assertion that opining on the internet is "taking the law into your own hands," whereas shooting someone in the back because you think they might be a criminal is not. That's your assertion, right?

"You want to know how you can kill somebody legally in Florida?" says Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Make sure you have no witnesses, hunt the person down and then say you feared for your life."

"You want to know how you can kill somebody legally in Florida?" says Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Make sure you have no witnesses, hunt the person down and then say you feared for your life."

Wait a minute. Are you implying that the law says something about having no witnesses and lying?

If a person has no witnesses and can convincingly lie about what happened, wouldn't that person be able to get away with the killing even without a "stand your ground law?" Wisconsin has no "stand your ground law" and even before the new "Castle doctrine" law one could use deadly force when in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. If one can convince the prosecutor or jury that those conditions existed when they did not actually exist it doesn't mean that the self-defense law is flawed, it just means someone beat the system.

Would you rather have no self-defense law? Do you think that nobody can claim self-defense if there are no witnesses to corroborate the incident?